Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: It's a Huonderful Life! Open Letter to Fr. Jorna, District Superior of the SSPX  (Read 9850 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Thank you for posting, Barry.
I think all of us in the Resistance would do well to imitate Fr Pinaud and send letters of concern to those priests of the SSPX who have served us in the past, perhaps even send them this letter.
Fr Pinaud, and Bishop Tissier whom he quotes, would seem to be in error regarding the opinion of Fr Calderon. From what Sean posted on another thread, and from what I have heard BW say in the past, Fr Calderon holds that there is a shadow of doubt in the new rite of episcopal consecration, and that such doubt cannot be tolerated "at the very root of the sacraments", and therefore that such consecrations should be conditionally repeated.
Also, I am surprised that Bishop Tissier would have no concerns about sacraments administered by Cardinal Lustiger.
As an aside, it is interesting to note that Bishop Tissier invokes Canon 209 regarding common error and supplied jurisdiction to validate the Confirmations of Bishop Lazo in the event that his episcopal consecration is invalid. 

So, when did Bishop Tissier turn?

In the wake of the fallout of 2012, I went on a retreat in Connecticut with +Zendegas and the Dominicans of Avrille.  The oldest Dominican priest (whose name I can't recall) read us an email exchange between he and +Tissier in which +Tissier said he was ready to make a deal.


In the wake of the fallout of 2012, I went on a retreat in Connecticut with +Zendegas and the Dominicans of Avrille.  The oldest Dominican priest (whose name I can't recall) read us an email exchange between he and +Tissier in which +Tissier said he was ready to make a deal.

Fr. Marie-Dominique.

Thanks.  I did my confession with him which was good.

This ambiguous situation motivated the departure of Fr. Rousseau, which you had announced in a brief message to the confreres of the District of France:


Suresnes, May 7, 2019
Dear confreres,


As we prepare for Pentecost to receive the Paraclete in order to abandon ourselves more perfectly to divine grace, it is my duty to announce to you the departure of Father Rousseau from the Society. He has already left the priory of Bailly to go alongside Father Morgan. The letter he wrote to me just before leaving us stipulates that his departure is “a question of truth”: the arrival, he says, of Bishop Huonder in Wangs, “wolf in the sheepfold”, is intolerable to him.


I can only regret his unexpected departure and obviously recommend him to your prayers.
Father B. de Jorna


Two years later, Father Rousseau could answer the “question of truth” since he revealed on his site on May 25, 2021 that “What was to happen…” had happened.
What had happened?
In spite of the reproaches of distorting the reality that the General House made to Fr. Rousseau, obviously Bishop Huonder did not give himself up only to "prayer and silence", but the former bishop of Chur heard Confessions, taught catechism, gave Confirmation and even had just said a Pontifical Mass for Pentecost 2021 at the seminary of Zaitzkofen...
Here is a reply I received from a senior priest of the SSPX, of the 'conservative wing', to whom I expressed my concerns at the time when Bishop Huonder came to live under the roof of the SSPX with the approval of Pope Francis, without any repudiation of the Council or the Conciliar Church, straight from altar girls, as it were, to Tradition:

Bishop Huonder states that his staying with the Society of St. Pius X is only to devote himself to prayer and the traditional Latin Mass. If this is true, then there is no real danger to us. He will obviously not be administering sacraments for us and has been told that if he lives with us, he cannot do so for the Fraternity of St. Peter either. We shall see. I think that Fr. Rousseau is overreacting, and that there is another real reason for his departure. Fr. De Jorna quotes him because the accusation is so obviously over-exaggerated...

Fr Pagliarani has insisted on our opposition to the errors of Vatican II, and the idea of a canonical arrangement without resolution of the doctrinal issues has now been abandoned, as it should have been all along. So we are practically back to the chapter of 2006 statement.

Is there any point getting back in touch with this priest and reminding him of what he said?